I do not see how we can have a default value without providing a way for
the client to find out what it is. A publisher may have a different idea
of what the default value is than the inquirer, which means that an out-of-band
implied agreement must exist between all users of a registry. A node, on
the other hand, is not involved in the interpretation of content (is it?), so it
is not a party to such agreement. A node may be used though to establish
the agreement between users by publishing a special "default language"
descriptor in the node businessEntity. It could be either in the
businessEntity's categoryBag or down at the service level to allow for multiple
different default languages on multiple services or endpoints, if that's a
realistic requirement. Sounds like TN material?
Replication also complicates things
somewhat...
My opinion is that it would be worthwhile to make xml:lang
mandatory everywhere. This would eliminate the need for
users to agree on a default. If the registry is used by more than one
language community, it would be very difficult to establish and meaningfully
enforce a default language.
Daniel
My reading of the standard suggested that it was optional, and
that its omission indicated that the text was in the "default" language, not
that the idea of default language is adequately described - is it default for
the node, or default for the user?
It used to be that only one entry could use any given xml:lang value
(including default), but that restriction has been eased in V3. As I see it,
any number of entries could be coded to the default, so optional seems a valid
way of indicating this.
I'd be in favour of drawing it into line with the treatment of xml:lang
for names - the two are analogous, as I see it.
Tony Rogers
-----Original Message----- From: Tom Bellwood
[mailto:bellwood@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thu 19/06/2003 9:12
To: Luc Clement Cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [uddi-spec] Omission of use="optional" on the
description element
Yes, the xml:lang is optional everywhere else but for
descriptions. I agree we weren't consistent in its
treatment. I also seem to recall that it was intentionally
left as required here because descriptions are intended to be human
readable text and having the xml:lang can be important for such
uses. We should consider if this line of reasoning is
important before making it optional I think.
Other opinions?
Someone with a different recollection than mine here?
Thanks, Tom
Bellwood Phone: (512) 838-9957
(external); TL: 678/9957 (internal) Co-Chair, OASIS
UDDI Specification TC STSM - Emerging Technologies IBM
Corporation
"Luc Clement" <lclement@windows.microsoft.com> on
06/18/2003 01:39:47 PM
To:
<uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: Subject:
[uddi-spec] Omission of use="optional" on the
description
element
Tom / TC,
Please note that the http://uddi.org/schema/uddi_v3.xsd
schema omits use="optional" on the description element. I think this
is an omission and recommend we correct this definition as part of
CR-002. The current schema is declared
as:
<xsd:elementname="description"type="uddi:description"final="restriction"/>
<xsd:complexTypename="description"final="restriction">
<xsd:simpleContent>
<xsd:extensionbase="uddi:validationTypeString255">
<xsd:attributeref="xml:lang"/>
</xsd:extension>
</xsd:simpleContent>
</xsd:complexType>
... when I think we should have it declared
as:
<xsd:elementname="description"type="uddi:description"final="restriction"/>
<xsd:complexTypename="description"final="restriction">
<xsd:simpleContent>
<xsd:extensionbase="uddi:validationTypeString255">
<xsd:attributeref="xml:lang"use="optional"/>
</xsd:extension>
</xsd:simpleContent>
</xsd:complexType>
For your
consideration.
Luc
Luc Clément Microsoft
You may
leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/leave_workgroup.php
You
may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/leave_workgroup.php
|